Support NeoGAF

[Dogtooth]

I like how people are angry that his views on issues aren't uniformly left-wing. What is nuance?

Him being pro-Israel is a plus for me.

You should take another look at your uses of "left-wing", "nuance", and "pro-".

Is it "pro-American" to support expanding the use dealth penalty or hydrofracking or deporting immigrants?

 

[kame-sennin]

It's not that, it's the fact that Sanders supporters can't go 5 minutes without saying something about Hillary instead of championing their own dude. It's the political equivalent of a guy in a FilmGAF thread that disses Ant-Man when someone asks them why they liked Man of Steel.

It's important to bring up in order to reinforce the fact that we do not live in a democracy.

 

[Veritigo_X]

It's important to bring up in order to reinforce the fact that we do not live in a democracy.

But mostly it's to deflect away any criticism from Sanders. It seems like people really want to reinforce this idea of more than one candidate when Sanders has a negative thread about him...

 

[User 463088]

Except Nader did not take the US to war and Nader did not commit 9/11. You're making broad accusations and putting his election bid as proximate cause to events that he could not have possibly influenced nor were foreseeable.

Nader didn't ruin Al Gore's chances. Al Gore couldn't enough people to vote for him. That's Gore's problem.

Well, more people voted for him than voted for Shrub, but that's neither here nor there. Nader was not solely responsible for Gore's defeat, obviously. However, had ne not been in the race, there's a very, very, very good chance we'd have had President Gore. (Ignoring the clusterfuck in Florida entirely). Had Gore won New Hampshire, for instance, he would have been President. It goes the other way too. Perot in 1992 ensured Clinton would win. At the national level, 3rd party candidates only have the potential to be spoilers. LIke I said, though, I don't vote Democrat because I think the Greens won't win. I vote Democrat because I'm actually a Democrat.

I've been thinking about this all day because there was something sticking in my craw about it. I couldn't figure out what it was. I think I did.

When someone points out the problems with some of Sander's plans--the unfeasibility of what he's proposing, for instance--we're told that he'll just do it anyway. He'll take on the Big Banks (although no one knows how). He'll force Congress to pass Single Payer healthcare, with a GOP majority in at least one chamber. He's going to get free college education by good feelings and sheer progressive will. And if not, then we'll march on the Supreme Court!

But on the issue of guns.....no. He's a pragmatist, and that's a-okay. That's a big disconnect. It leads me to a couple possible solutions. Either it's just not an issue he truly cares about (or his supporters don't really care about), or its okay to be a pragmatist about some things but not others. Neither is really a great place to be, is it?

Just my thoughts. Not attacking anyone...just pointing out something that was kinda bugging me today.

 

[Wall]

Well, more people voted for him than voted for Shrub, but that's neither here nor there. Nader was not solely responsible for Gore's defeat, obviously. However, had ne not been in the race, there's a very, very, very good chance we'd have had President Gore. (Ignoring the clusterfuck in Florida entirely). Had Gore won New Hampshire, for instance, he would have been President. It goes the other way too. Perot in 1992 ensured Clinton would win. At the national level, 3rd party candidates only have the potential to be spoilers. LIke I said, though, I don't vote Democrat because I think the Greens won't win. I vote Democrat because I'm actually a Democrat.

I've been thinking about this all day because there was something sticking in my craw about it. I couldn't figure out what it was. I think I did.

When someone points out the problems with some of Sander's plans--the unfeasibility of what he's proposing, for instance--we're told that he'll just do it anyway. He'll take on the Big Banks (although no one knows how). He'll force Congress to pass Single Payer healthcare, with a GOP majority in at least one chamber. He's going to get free college education by good feelings and sheer progressive will. And if not, then we'll march on the Supreme Court!

But on the issue of guns.....no. He's a pragmatist, and that's a-okay. That's a big disconnect. It leads me to a couple possible solutions. Either it's just not an issue he truly cares about (or his supporters don't really care about), or its okay to be a pragmatist about some things but not others. Neither is really a great place to be, is it?

Just my thoughts. Not attacking anyone...just pointing out something that was kinda bugging me today.

Its a different emphasis. I don't think it is an attack to point out something that is true. There is no point denying it. Here is how I look at it:

If you swapped President Hillary, Sanders, Biden, or even Elizabeth Warren and kept everything else constant about the current political situation, there really wouldn't be any difference in terms of big Democratic agenda items like gun control because the Republicans would control at least the House. Unfortunately, Republicans are pretty much locked into control of at least the House for the foreseeable future mainly because of geography. Gerrymandering plays a part, but even absent that, demographics that tend to vote Republican tend to dominate rural areas, while demographics that tend to vote Democratic tend to concentrate in urban and suburban areas.

As it relates to gun control, people in rural areas tend to view guns very differently than people in urban and suburban areas. I spent four years in central Pennsylvania. Out there, schools have off for the first day of hunting season, and even the top 40 station has adds on the radio for gift certificates to the local gun store. I visited a town where the biggest building was a large warehouse with the word "guns" printed in huge letters on the roof. The problem for Democrats is that these people vote; they don't really like gun control; and they hold disproportionate political power due both to gerrymandering and the geography of this country.

To me, all that means that its almost impossible for Democrats to pass aggressive gun control legislation in the current political environment. I think you would need disasters on the scale of the Iraq War, Katerina, Bush's attempt to partially privatize social security, and the financial crisis to get voters in rural areas in many states to switch back to the Democrats as they did between 2006 and 2010. And then, if Democrats did manage to pass gun control legislation, they would simply get voted out again like the did in 2010 and 1994. I spent too much time in 2012 and 2014 hoping that Obama's coattails or voter disgust with Republicans threatening to shut down the government would flip the House back to the Democrats. It just isn't happening. Sadly, the issue of gun control especially is a wedge issue that seems to irrevocably divide rural voters from urban and suburban voters.

Believe it or not, stuff like "taking on banks" actually enjoys more popular support among people in both urban and suburban areas than something like gun control. From what I can tell, the Sanders people are trying to build a coalition centered around economic issues that can win in both urban and rural areas. I'm not sure if that will work, but that is the theory. Such an emphasis would probably tend to deemphasize the pursuit of very aggressive gun control legislation, or at least cause Sanders to not want to appear to be the furthest left on that issue.

I understand all of that is upsetting in light of the clear need to do something about gun violence, but it is what it is. I just don't see aggressive, or realistically any gun control passing right now because I still think the Republicans are going to control at least the House regardless of who wins the Presidency.

 

[User 463088]

Its a different emphasis. I don't think it is an attack to point out something that is true. There is no point denying it. Here is how I look at it:

If you swapped President Hillary, Sanders, Biden, or even Elizabeth Warren and kept everything else constant about the current political situation, there really wouldn't be any difference in terms of big Democratic agenda items like gun control because the Republicans would control at least the House. Unfortunately, Republicans are pretty much locked into control of at least the House for the foreseeable future mainly because of geography. Gerrymandering plays a part, but even absent that, demographics that tend to vote Republican tend to dominate rural areas, while demographics that tend to vote Democratic tend to concentrate in urban and suburban areas.

As it relates to gun control, people in rural areas tend to view guns very differently than people in urban and suburban areas. I spent four years in central Pennsylvania. Out there, schools have off for the first day of hunting season, and even the top 40 station has adds on the radio for gift certificates to the local gun store. I visited a town where the biggest building was a large warehouse with the word "guns" printed in huge letters on the roof. The problem for Democrats is that these people vote; they don't really like gun control; and they hold disproportionate political power due both to gerrymandering and the geography of this country.

To me, all that means that its almost impossible for Democrats to pass aggressive gun control legislation in the current political environment. I think you would need disasters on the scale of the Iraq War, Katerina, Bush's attempt to partially privatize social security, and the financial crisis to get voters in rural areas in many states to switch back to the Democrats as they did between 2006 and 2010. And then, if Democrats did manage to pass gun control legislation, they would simply get voted out again like the did in 2010 and 1994. I spent too much time in 2012 and 2014 hoping that Obama's coattails or voter disgust with Republicans threatening to shut down the government would flip the House back to the Democrats. It just isn't happening. Sadly, the issue of gun control especially is a wedge issue that seems to irrevocably divide rural voters from urban and suburban voters.

Believe it or not, stuff like "taking on banks" actually enjoys more popular support among people in both urban and suburban areas than something like gun control. From what I can tell, the Sanders people are trying to build a coalition centered around economic issues that can win in both urban and rural areas. I'm not sure if that will work, but that is the theory. Such an emphasis would probably tend to deemphasize the pursuit of very aggressive gun control legislation, or at least cause Sanders to not want to appear to be the furthest left on that issue.

I understand all of that is upsetting in light of the clear need to do something about gun violence, but it is what it is. I just don't see aggressive, or realistically any gun control passing right now because I still think the Republicans are going to control at least the House regardless of who wins the Presidency.

Thanks for your response.

We actually agree. I don't mind marginal improvements to gun laws. I think Hillary goes a bit further than Sanders, though. Her plan also has the benefit of explaining how she'd do it without Congress on board. I agree, whoever we put up there is going to to have at least one (if not two) hostile chambers.

Where I have the issue is that a lot of us Clinton supporters get attacked for supporting what are seen as half-measures. I call them realistic goals. We're not real liberals because we don't expect a home run out the gates. Because the moment Sanders doesn't deliver every single thing he promises, or the moment he compromises, they're going to be out faster than some of the Obama for America people.

I'm also terrified of a repeat of 2010. Obviously, the GOP is helped by the gerrymandering. Some (again not all but some) of Sander's supporters show open disdain for the idea of compromising ideological purity. (Or anyone who doesn't immediately agree with the Bern 100%). The only way you govern is through compromise, unless you can get a super majority, and even then laws passed in that manner can come back to bite you in the ass later.

I know that I could never, ever get my version of gun control past Congress. (It would involve the repeal of the 2nd Amendment). But I also know that the enemy of the perfect isn't the good. This applies to guns, education, health care and the rest.

We're definitely on the same page. Sanders just loves focusing on the economic issues. That's his bread and butter. Everything else is secondary to him. He's shown when he gets knocked off message he doesn't recover well. While economic inequality is a big issue for me, it's not the only issue a President needs to deal with.

 

[Wall]

Thanks for your response.

No problem. Even apart from the candidate vs. candidate aspect, I enjoy talking about this kind of stuff because I find it fascinating. I just have to watch I don't devote too much time to it.....

 

[Inuhanyou]

.

 

[AxelFoley]

Yeah, its funny that folks mention how white Bernie's supporters are, because I really do think Bernie has made a concerted effort in the campaign to court working class white voters back to the democratic party. His speech at liberty is a great example of this.

Those whites aren't coming back to the Democratic Party.

 

[AxelFoley]

Here!



Do you vote on gun control alone? I prefer Hillary's stance on gun control, but none of her other policies appeal to me in any great way. Her presidency would be even more conservative than Obama's.

I wasn't aware that Obama's was conservative. I mean, equal pay, health care, ending wars, saving the economy--who knew those were conservative actions?

Shit, the things you hear on the internets.

 

[kame-sennin]

Except Nader did not take the US to war and Nader did not commit 9/11. You're making broad accusations and putting his election bid as proximate cause to events that he could not have possibly influenced nor were foreseeable.

Nader didn't ruin Al Gore's chances. Al Gore couldn't enough people to vote for him. That's Gore's problem.

Democrats refuse to hold the L for that election. They ran a shitty candidate who couldn't beat a moron, and they got screwed by the court. But they'd rather blame Nader, who probably had no effect at all, rather than reflect on their own incompetence.

 

[Tawpgun]

My roommate was pretty involved in this. Dunno if it was posted yet but

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...pro-palestine-activists-outside-boston-rally/

 

[JDSN]

hmm...







"Literally no one"

You don't have to pretend, every single Bernie thread on GAF is eventually up-ended with a "white progressives are the problem" post, if it isn't the OP itself.

I already responded to someone that I meant crazy people, unless you think im saying all white Sanders supporters are crazy, ugh so tired of people bringing up race into everything.

 

[Gordon Shumway]

I already responded to you that I meant crazy people, unless you think im saying all white Sanders supporters are crazy, ugh so tired of people bringing up race into everything.

Dying..

 

[LosDaddie]

Well, I am a Sander's supporter and I will continue to be. I can't control the actions of Sander's supporters who are behaving like assholes, but I will call out behavior when I see it. In this thread, though, all I see are attacks on Sanders and his supporters.

This is the result of conservatives (essentially) being run off GAF. There's a void of a true "enemy" to fight on here. So now the diehard partisans on GAF take a more liberal-purity stance and attack those who are only 80-90% on their side.

All of which is hilariously ironic, as it's exactly what the GOP base does as well. Can't take a (very) conservative former governor of Utah as a serious candidate because he believes in climate change. Total RINO that dude.

Also, its primary season. Inner party fights are supposed to happen, even for Dems.

Those whites aren't coming back to the Democratic Party.

A small percentage of voters changing sides can swing an election.

 

[Veritigo_X]

This is the result of conservatives (essentially) being run off GAF. There's a void of a true "enemy" to fight on here. So now the diehard partisans on GAF take a more liberal-purity stance and attack those who are only 80-90% on their side.

All of which is hilariously ironic, as it's exactly what the GOP base does as well. Can't take a (very) conservative former governor of Utah as a serious candidate because he believes in climate change. Total RINO that dude.

Also, its primary season. Inner party fights are supposed to happen, even for Dems.

The squabbles between Sanders and Clinton supporters are fucking adorable compared to the shit happening on the conservative side of things. Like you said, it's normal to fight over a candidate within your party. Some people seem to have forgotten the 2008 election primaries.